I guess, at root, I am all in favour of government action where you’re dealing with quantifiable harm to other people. So, for example, the steep penalties applied to people caught driving a car under the influence; fair enough. But I’m very leery of micromanaging people’s lives. After all, we are more than just machines, to be directed to consume the appropriate substances. Or to put it another way, you could possibly engineer a population of people who all ate, drank and exercised right. But would they be ‘happy’ en masse? Probably no more than now, quite possibly less so. And probably a lot more resentful. I am aware that this is straying a bit off topic off the original post.

Anyhow, I guess my rule of thumb is, by all means target the behaviour that goes with really aggressive drinking (pubs, clubs, and the traffic from such places). And yeah, by all means target some of the more culturally toxic advertising that emanates from the hard liquor and beer companies. After that, I’m not sure. Kevin Rudd’s idea probably will, as he say, do no harm, but I tend to doubt it will do much good either.

Australia loves its national drink too much for prohibition or anything remotely like it to be a possibility in the foreseeable future. I also think you’re right that prohibition is entirely the wrong message to be selling.

I think there’s probably a reasonable case suggesting that as Australia collectively works longer hours and/or feels more financial stress, the urge to take the pressure off through drug use only increases.

Some of the talking heads I hear from time to time really do seem to be intimating that any alcohol use, and any use of any drug, legal or illegal, is a Bad Thing. And there, I just cannot go.

Maybe today’s belligerantly hedonistic society needs to cool down a bit and stop also being today’s belligerantly work-oriented society. I suspect the two are connected and I equally suspect that any notion of addressing the latter has absolutely zero chance of success.